On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:23:43AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Excerpts from David Fetter's message of jue mar 15 02:28:28 -0300 2012: > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:06:20PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > > > >> I think that instead of inventing new grammar productions and > > > >> a new node type for this, you should just reuse the existing > > > >> productions for LIKE clauses and then reject invalid options > > > >> during parse analysis. > > > > > > > > OK. Should I first merge CREATE FOREIGN TABLE with CREATE > > > > TABLE and submit that as a separate patch? > > > > > > I don't see any reason to do that. I merely meant that you > > > could reuse TableLikeClause or maybe even TableElement in the > > > grammer for CreateForeignTableStmt. > > > > Next WIP patch attached implementing this via reusing > > TableLikeClause and refactoring transformTableLikeClause(). > > > > What say? > > Looks much better to me, but the use of strcmp() doesn't look good. > ISTM that stmtType is mostly used for error messages. I think you > should add some kind of identifier (such as the original parser > Node) into the CreateStmtContext so that you can do a IsA() test > instead -- a bit more invasive as a patch, but much cleaner.
OK > Also the error messages need more work. What sort? The more I look at this, the more I think that CREATE TABLE and CREATE FOREIGN TABLE should be merged, but that's the subject of a later patch. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
